stexpandedfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Fanon
How 'bout a couple examples to differentiate between fanon and fan fiction, for those who may confuse the terms? --TimPendragon 09:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC) :Yep, and I've been meaning to get to that. So many things to do.... (Wanna tackle it yourself?) --SasorizaA•T 09:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ::Been trying to think of a few beside Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet... --TimPendragon 09:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) :::Actually I use to think that too but isn't that wrong? The [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Intrepid_%2823rd_century%29 USS Intrepid] from the TOS episode - The Immunity Syndrome, is mentioned as having an almost all Vulcan crew. So I think either Spock is "one of the first Vulcan's in Stafleet" or maybe he's the first Vulcan on the Enterprise or the first to become First Officer? Ah the fun debates we can have about this........ The guys at TotSF answered our own fanon loophole - according to TNG, Data the only android to ever enter Starfleet service. In TotSF we have Enigma but she is not "offically" in Starfleet service (she's on "loan" from the Vulcan Science Academy) which (in our minds) keep us in line with canon.-- Sneg Admin•Talk 16:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Likewise, in the first DC Comics series, there was a Klingon traiter named Konom who served on Kirk's crew, but it was considered and "honorary" or "brevet" thing, so it technically doesn't conflict with Worf being the "first Klingon in Starfleet." As for Spock vs. the Intrepid crew, there are a lot of different explanations. --TimPendragon 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::And are all you policy-setters now saying that additions to the database should certainly be citable to "something, somewhere"? -- 'fanon' facts like Spock, First Vulcan in Starfleet and other incinsistencies don't actually have any real source that we could trace -- so how are they relevant to a fan fiction database? doesn't that mean we are not a "fanon" database? -- 72.192.51.151 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :::Okay, I'm not an admin and therefore not a "policy-setter," but here's how I see it. We should be both a fan fiction and fanon wiki, because the other two aren't doing either (though various Wikipedia articles mention fanon ideas in passing). Yes, there's a big difference between fanon and fan fiction (though of course, they're not mutually exclusive). Most fanon ideas have been around so long as to be ingrained in the "racial memories" of Trekkers and Trekkies. A lot of these ideas first originated in print fanzines or Trek magazine - the latter has been collected in various volumes of The Best of Trek series. The existence of Starfleet Marines for example is pure fan conjecture, which of course has made its way into fan fiction. Fans also come up with a lot of theories to explain inconsitencies - some of those are published on sites like Ex Astris Scientia. Information like that should definitely be included on the wiki. :::That's not to say that people have free reign to just make up a theory and post it. There's a world of difference between an article about the idea of Spock as the first Vulcan in Starfleet (and the inconsitencies that go along with that notion) and someone writing an "article" about how Picard was Kirk's grandson or something like that. People recognize the former as a fanon concept, whereas the latter sounds like someone just made it up (though if they wrote and published a story about it, it could be referenced as such). :::Regardless, fanon articles should be referenced wherever possible (just as is done on Wikipedia), and there are tons of sites and print materials to draw from, be it about Spock and Starfleet or the Klingon Forehead Dilemma. --TimPendragon 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::actually, one of the points of wiki-communities is that not just admins are policy-setters -- policies should not be changed or enacted unless they have approval of editors. otherwise, a wiki would become elitist and unwelcoming. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :::And once again, you intentionally ignore the main point of my response to pick at a minor detail. Sigh. --TimPendragon 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::don't worry, your points are well-taken. once again, i get a snotty personal comment back rather than a continuation of the discussion.. *sigh* -- Captain M.K.B. 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :::Because you weren't continuing the discussion. Your reply had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It was a sidetrack. --TimPendragon 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::THAT'S A GREAT POINT TIM! -- Captain M.K.B. 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :GENTLEMEN - PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL. THANK YOU. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::I don't see how me telling someone they made a "great point" is uncivil. I agree with everything Tim said about canon, fanon and fan fiction. He is a great archivist and a credit to his keyboard. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :::I don't think he was speaking entirely to you, Mike, but the ALL CAPS may have triggered a "nastymeter-alarm." --TimPendragon 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)